Hegel
6th November 2003, 02:46 PM
I have heard a large number of people claiming that there is no alternative to capitalism. I read an interesting book, called After Capitalism, by David Schweickart. This book, instead of just bashing the capitalistic theories, provided a coherent replacement for the phasing out of capitalism.
He defined economic democracy as containing:
1. Worker ownership of all firms.
2. A market in which commodities are traded for money.
3. A system of public investment banks.
On one:
The workers in a firm, using a one man, one vote system elect a board which selects upper management, and then upper management selects lower management ad nauseum. Because the firms are worker owned, the profit margins are divided up between the workers. Not neccessarily perfectly equally, but having at most the top employees being payed about 10 times that of the lowest paid employee.
On two:
Works like any other market society. Firms compete against one another for the best consumption of goods.
On three:
All firms would pay a set capital assets tax, which would be a cut of the firms profits. This money would go to a capital investment fund. The national government would then take some of that money and spend it on national projects. Then they would send the rest of the money down on a per capita system to the regional levels, where money would be spent on regional projects. Finally, again on the per capita system, money would be sent to the local level. There it would be sent to a set of banks, based on their history of making profitable investments and employment creating investments. Current cooperatives and start up cooperatives then petition the banks for capital, and a granted money, if they are deemed to be both profitable and based on ability to grant employment.
That is a simple outline of what David Schweickart calls economic democracy. Let's see critiques, complements, questions, and concerns!
He defined economic democracy as containing:
1. Worker ownership of all firms.
2. A market in which commodities are traded for money.
3. A system of public investment banks.
On one:
The workers in a firm, using a one man, one vote system elect a board which selects upper management, and then upper management selects lower management ad nauseum. Because the firms are worker owned, the profit margins are divided up between the workers. Not neccessarily perfectly equally, but having at most the top employees being payed about 10 times that of the lowest paid employee.
On two:
Works like any other market society. Firms compete against one another for the best consumption of goods.
On three:
All firms would pay a set capital assets tax, which would be a cut of the firms profits. This money would go to a capital investment fund. The national government would then take some of that money and spend it on national projects. Then they would send the rest of the money down on a per capita system to the regional levels, where money would be spent on regional projects. Finally, again on the per capita system, money would be sent to the local level. There it would be sent to a set of banks, based on their history of making profitable investments and employment creating investments. Current cooperatives and start up cooperatives then petition the banks for capital, and a granted money, if they are deemed to be both profitable and based on ability to grant employment.
That is a simple outline of what David Schweickart calls economic democracy. Let's see critiques, complements, questions, and concerns!